stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065 
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Feb 27, 2016 18:33:37 GMT
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 27, 2016 18:34:50 GMT
Yes; on that very page. Just scroll down and you will see the "PROVISION FUND BALANCE"
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Feb 27, 2016 18:38:48 GMT
Doh!  |
|
boble
Posts: 150
Likes: 65
|
Post by boble on Feb 28, 2016 15:55:07 GMT
It says "Saving Stream investors can make an application to the Provision Fund for compensation if their initial investment cannot be fully repaid due to a shortfall in the sale of the security".
Read literally this would mean that in the event of an investment in a loan which fails, an initial investment of say, £500,followed by a problem with invest of say, £5,000,the fund will provide protection up to £500 only.
Is the intention or does the wording need amending?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 28, 2016 17:08:45 GMT
I always understood it as the amount of capital one has in a particular investment, no matter if it was your initial investments, or top-ups on the SM. Any other ideas?
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Feb 28, 2016 18:02:32 GMT
Since any payment is discretionary anyway it does not really matter.
|
|
boble
Posts: 150
Likes: 65
|
Post by boble on Feb 28, 2016 21:19:27 GMT
I think it would be helpful to have clarity as to the ground rules. The fund is one of the features of the platform.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Feb 28, 2016 22:17:03 GMT
I think it would be helpful to have clarity as to the ground rules. The fund is one of the features of the platform. It would be nice, but unfortunately there can be no rules otherwise it would count as insurance which would involve a huge regulatory burden and no platform could afford the fund level called for. This applies to all platforms with a PF not just SS.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Feb 28, 2016 23:12:47 GMT
It says "Saving Stream investors can make an application to the Provision Fund for compensation if their initial investment cannot be fully repaid due to a shortfall in the sale of the security". Read literally this would mean that in the event of an investment in a loan which fails, an initial investment of say, £500,followed by a problem with invest of say, £5,000,the fund will provide protection up to £500 only. Is the intention or does the wording need amending? Another possible interpretation may be that they will consider covering the investment but not any outstanding interest.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 29, 2016 3:02:25 GMT
It says "Saving Stream investors can make an application to the Provision Fund for compensation if their initial investment cannot be fully repaid due to a shortfall in the sale of the security". Read literally this would mean that in the event of an investment in a loan which fails, an initial investment of say, £500,followed by a problem with invest of say, £5,000,the fund will provide protection up to £500 only. Is the intention or does the wording need amending? Another possible interpretation may be that they will consider covering the investment but not any outstanding interest. That may pre-date the new Ts&Cs. Back then, accrued interest wasn't much of an issue because SS was committed to paying that monthly. With the new Ts&Cs opening the door for interest to stop being paid and just accrue once the term remaining reaches zero it could be a significant issue if loans get into triple-digit negative terms remaining as some are now. It sure would be nice if SS were to clarify how they expect the PF to deal with payouts and -- as I've already asked multiple times -- what exactly will happen to the PF balance if payouts are required. Since they've not bothered to respond to my question at all, I don't expect they'll address the other one any time soon. 
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Feb 29, 2016 8:19:58 GMT
Another possible interpretation may be that they will consider covering the investment but not any outstanding interest. That may pre-date the new Ts&Cs. Back then, accrued interest wasn't much of an issue because SS was committed to paying that monthly. With the new Ts&Cs opening the door for interest to stop being paid and just accrue once the term remaining reaches zero it could be a significant issue if loans get into triple-digit negative terms remaining as some are now. It sure would be nice if SS were to clarify how they expect the PF to deal with payouts and -- as I've already asked multiple times -- what exactly will happen to the PF balance if payouts are required. Since they've not bothered to respond to my question at all, I don't expect they'll address the other one any time soon. It's discretionary. They don't even know themselves. It will all depend on the circumstances prevailing at the time. You cannot expect them to commit to anything. It's discretionary. Treat it as an extra comfort layer not as any sort of contractual right. It's discretionary.
|
|
spiral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 909
Likes: 456
|
Post by spiral on Feb 29, 2016 8:44:17 GMT
Personally, for 12% return, I work on the basis there is no PF.
However, because there is, and it states discretionary, this opens the can of worms that not all lenders may be treated equally.
Its use may depend purely on the goals of SS at the time.
E.g If one person has a single loan that suffers a "loss", they may want to make good all of that with perhaps some interest whereas someone who has 100 loans of which this is one of them may not get as much or even any.
This could be so that they could advertise to the effect that no one has had a return of less than x% despite a loss being suffered on a loan at platform level.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 29, 2016 8:53:01 GMT
Personally, for 12% return, I work on the basis there is no PF. However, because there is, and it states discretionary, this opens the can of worms that not all lenders may be treated equally. Its use may depend purely on the goals of SS at the time. E.g If one person has a single loan that suffers a "loss", they may want to make good all of that with perhaps some interest whereas someone who has 100 loans of which this is one of them may not get as much or even any. This could be so that they could advertise to the effect that no one has had a return of less than x% despite a loss being suffered on a loan at platform level. You seem to be suggesting that some investors in a particular failed loan - those with zero diversification - should be protected by the PF, whilst others - those who have diversified sensibly - should not? That, to me, would be a totally unacceptable use of PF discretion. Use it on some loans, not others - sure. But not for some investors within a loan, but not for all investors within that loan.
|
|
spiral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 909
Likes: 456
|
Post by spiral on Feb 29, 2016 9:14:06 GMT
That, to me, would be a totally unacceptable use of PF discretion. Use it on some loans, not others - sure. But not for some investors within a loan, but not for all investors within that loan. I couldn't agree more, the problem is the word "discretionary" which could lend itself to all kinds of interpretations. Most would tend to think of some/all or nothing. I'm not suggesting for one minute that it would be used like I described, just that it could, because there are no published guidlines.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,055
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Apr 29, 2016 15:31:52 GMT
I've noticed that Lendy Provision Reserve Ltd is more than 2 months late filing its first annual return and recently had a compulsory strike-off notice (subsequently cancelled). Isn't this the entity that is meant to be housing the provision fund? I assume the late filing and strike off notice are related - hopefully this is just an administrative oversight in ensuring compliance with the usual filing requirements, but doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence.
|
|
